1. The landlord before the Rent Controller filed both the civil revision petitions, challenging the order passed by the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in R.A.No.253 of 2014 and Cross Objections vide S.R.No.212 of 2015, whereby, the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, dismissed the petition filed under Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘A.P. Act, 1960’), and rejected the cross objections in the rent appeal.

2. For convenience of reference, the ranks given to the parties before the Rent Controller in R.C.No.494 OF 2011 will be adopted throughout the order.

3. The landlord filed petition before the Rent Controller under Section 4 of the Rent Control Act for fixation of fair rent for the petition schedule mulgi bearing No.3-4-1069 which is situated opposite to Kacheguda Railway Station, Hyderabad. It is the case that the premises was originally given on lease to the father of the tenant and after his death, the tenant continued the tenancy. The rent which the tenant along with his mother used to pay earlier was Rs.75/- per month and in the year 2004 a petition for fair rent fixation was filed vide R.C.No.372 of 2004 on the file of III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad and on merits, the fair rent for the petition schedule mulgi was fixed at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month and aggrieved by fair rent fixation order the tenant and his mother preferred an appeal vide R.A.No.208 of 2006 and the said appeal was dismissed, confirming the order passed by the Rent Controller. Since then, the tenant was paying the rent at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month, exclusive of electricity charges and municipal charges, which is not fair, in view of the present circumstances, like increase in price, standard of living and price index.

4. It is stated that the size of the shop is 9’-8” x 24’-8” with rear side room of 19’-7”x8’ and projection portion of 12’-1’ x 6’-10” on the front. Thus, the total plinth area of the petition schedule premises is 44.5 sq.yards.

5. As the tenant and his mother made an attempt to change the physical features of the mulgi, the landlord filed O.S.No.3364/2008 on the file of the X Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and obtained interim injunction in I.A.No.369 of 2008 and the suit was decreed after keen contest. It is further contended that the tenant had undertaken major repairs by fixing fall-ceiling by sizzling the walls without permission of the landlord. It is asserted that the comparable rent prevailing in the market within the vicinity of the schedule premises, at present, is very low, unjust and unfair and by considering the spurt in prices, rents prevailing within the vicinity of the suit premises and neighbouring areas, the premises would fetch not less than Rs.10,000/- per month, if it is let out to a reasonable tenant.

6. It is further contended that tax payable for the premises to the Municipal Corporation was Rs.2,162/- which is increased to Rs.2,834/-. Therefore, the landlord requested to fix fair rent at the rate of Rs.10,000/- for the mulgi with periodical enhancement at 25% every year on the fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller.

7. The respondent-tenant filed counter affidavit, denying material allegations, inter alia contending that the building was constructed about 62 years ago and also contended that his father was continuing as tenant since then and subsequent to his father’s death, the respondent-tenant was continuing as tenant on monthly rent of Rs.10,000/- which is fixed as fair rent in R.C.No.374 of 2004 which is exclusive of electricity consumption charges and property tax payable to the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation.

8. It is asserted that the measurements shown in the petition schedule are wrong and the correct measurements was taken by the Advocate Commissioner appointed in O.S.No.3364 of 2008 on the file of X Junior Civil Judge, City